PDA

View Full Version : House passes bill to regulate tobacco



mourningdove
07-30-2008, 07:52 PM
The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being.

Its backers call the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act "landmark" legislation. While the bill appears to have enough support to pass this year, it's unclear whether the Senate will have time to act, and the Bush administration is strongly opposed.

The 326-102 House vote signaled solid bipartisan support for the measure, with 96 Republicans breaking with President Bush to vote in favor of the bill. Both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., back the legislation.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., worked for more than a decade to get the House to pass tobacco regulation.

"This is truly a historic day in the fight against tobacco," Waxman said. "But it took us far too long to get here."

The bill would further tighten restrictions on tobacco advertising and impose new federal penalties for selling to minors. But its most far-reaching provisions would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco, from cigarettes to new kinds of smokeless products.

While the agency could not outlaw tobacco or nicotine, it could demand the reduction or elimination of cancer-causing chemicals in cigarette smoke. The bill would prohibit candy flavored cigars and cigarettes, and would give the FDA authority to ban menthol - by far the most commonly added flavoring.

Opponents of the bill say having a public health agency regulate tobacco would send the wrong message. Besides, they argue that the agency is overwhelmed dealing with food and drug safety problems, and doesn't need complicated new responsibilities.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080730/D928FG900.html

tobacco prices set to jump again! I gave up buying cigarrettes over a year ago and roll my own now with one of those machine thingys. Better tobacco, no chemicals and a whole bunch cheaper.

Gingersnap
07-30-2008, 08:07 PM
That's like having PETA regulate steaks. :rolleyes:

Goldwater
07-30-2008, 08:09 PM
That's like having PETA regulate steaks. :rolleyes:

Shouldn't just regulate, should be banned, along with alcohol, bring back prohibition!

Gingersnap
07-30-2008, 08:32 PM
Shouldn't just regulate, should be banned, along with alcohol, bring back prohibition!

Yeah! Because that's worked so well in the past. I can't wait to grow Colorado Fine Leaf tobacco in my backyard and sell it.

NonConformist
07-30-2008, 08:38 PM
Oh boy, more nanny state crap courtesy of our keepers in Washington! :mad: And I dont even smoke/dip/chew

FlaGator
07-30-2008, 08:40 PM
That's like having PETA regulate steaks. :rolleyes:

You mean they don't?

Zeus
07-30-2008, 09:06 PM
"This tobacco product has zero calories & zero transfats per serving"

Eyelids
07-30-2008, 09:16 PM
This is where liberals start to piss me off.

lacarnut
07-30-2008, 09:32 PM
Shouldn't just regulate, should be banned, along with alcohol, bring back prohibition!

Are you crazy? :) Just think of those Federal tax revenues that will be lost, and God forbid the states having to re-budget to make up for losing all that money (yearly payments) thru the tobacco setlement. :eek:

This is just another power grab because the Feds could not regulate a shit house effectively and cost--wise.

Lanie
07-30-2008, 09:59 PM
It's good to know we have the government to decide what's best for us. :rolleyes:

Do they want a black market?

Cold Warrior
07-30-2008, 10:03 PM
Shouldn't just regulate, should be banned, along with alcohol, bring back prohibition!

Conservatives are just as lacking in their sense of irony as liberals! ;) :D

Goldwater
07-30-2008, 10:16 PM
I'm not sure if all the people who replied to me reply know I was joking or not. ;)

Zeus
07-30-2008, 10:45 PM
I'm not sure if all the people who replied to me reply know I was joking or not. ;)

It ain't no Joke.Marlboro is the gateway drug. Sooner or later them marlboros just don't give ya the satisfaction they used to,then you migrate to marijuana use. Next thing you know you're an internetional cocaine distributor. :rolleyes:

Gingersnap
07-30-2008, 10:52 PM
I'm not sure if all the people who replied to me reply know I was joking or not. ;)

Use those smilie thingies more. :p

After that crack about my jet pack/Collie issue, I have no idea about your positions.

Goldwater
07-30-2008, 10:55 PM
Use those smilie thingies more. :p

After that crack about my jet pack/Collie issue, I have no idea about your positions.

But I'm me! Goldwater! ...Goldwater... Me!

Gingersnap
07-30-2008, 10:58 PM
But I'm me! Goldwater! ...Goldwater... Me!

I still figure you're a known Collie hater. :D

gator
07-31-2008, 07:20 AM
Congress acts like morons for like the last 75 years and they finally get around to doing something right.

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 07:24 AM
Ahh fuck. I should stock up.



Do they want a black market?

Yes, they do.

Goldwater
07-31-2008, 07:59 AM
It's good to know we have the government to decide what's best for us. :rolleyes:

Do they want a black market?

Governments been doing a great job helping the drug lords hold on their monopoly, why not the same for tobacco? Then once we're done there we can go to coffee, that stuff makes people jittery, I don't like it.

gator
07-31-2008, 09:11 AM
Governments been doing a great job helping the drug lords hold on their monopoly, why not the same for tobacco? Then once we're done there we can go to coffee, that stuff makes people jittery, I don't like it.

Tobacco is a very dangerous substance that kills a half million Americans a year. Because it is addicitive most people cannot make rational decisions on its use. Don't you think the government should regulate something that dangerous?

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 09:22 AM
Tobacco is a very dangerous substance that kills a half million Americans a year. Because it is addicitive most people cannot make rational decisions on its use.

Most people can't make rational decisions in general.



Don't you think the government should regulate something that dangerous?

Nope.

gator
07-31-2008, 09:44 AM
Most people can't make rational decisions in general.

You are correct, most people are morons. People that use tobacco product are the cream of the moron stock.




Nope

The courts disagree with you because it is settled case law in the US that the government has the right to regulate dangerous substances.

If you don't want the lawmakers to regulate it then don't vote them in.

You may argue that the law makers shouldn't regulate something that you are addicted to but you can't argue they don't have the right because the SCOTUS has already ruled on that. You lost.

Goldwater
07-31-2008, 09:49 AM
Tobacco is a very dangerous substance that kills a half million Americans a year. Because it is addicitive most people cannot make rational decisions on its use. Don't you think the government should regulate something that dangerous?

It's a terrible substance, my father died of lung cancer, tobacco is a silly thing to be involved with. However, people should have the freedom to make their stupid decisions and do it if they want to, same with drugs. Making tobacco illegal just means you've turned a couple of million people into drug addicts who have an ultimatum, they either have to quit cold turkey or break the law to get what they want, respect for the law decreases in this situation just like under prohibition.

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 09:58 AM
The courts disagree with you because it is settled case law in the US that the government has the right to regulate dangerous substances.

If you don't want the lawmakers to regulate it then don't vote them in.

You may argue that the law makers shouldn't regulate something that you are addicted to but you can't argue they don't have the right because the SCOTUS has already ruled on that. You lost.

Remember this post when the courts finally iron out just how far guns can be regulated while still calling it an individual right to bear arms.

How many billions of dollars a year are you willing to spend to wipe out the scourge of tobacco? You think when the violence that comes with the black market rises there won't be calls for even more gun regulation, more expansion of asset forfeiture laws, more police powers in general? Is that a price you're willing to pay?

gator
07-31-2008, 09:58 AM
It's a terrible substance, my father died of lung cancer, tobacco is a silly thing to be involved with. However, people should have the freedom to make their stupid decisions and do it if they want to, same with drugs. Making tobacco illegal just means you've turned a couple of million people into drug addicts who have an ultimatum, they either have to quit cold turkey or break the law to get what they want, respect for the law decreases in this situation just like under prohibition.

It is addictive, which means the people are not going make rational choices on its use. That is why a half million people dies each year.

If defective cars or illegal aliens killed a half million people each year we would demand the government step in. In fact if anything killed a half million people each year we would demand the government protect us. Why suggest the government should not be protecting us over this very dangerous and addictive substance?

If the harmful effects kicked in before and during the child bearing age the problem would go away due to the Darwin Effect. Since the damage occurs after the moron gene is passed on to offspring the problem continues.

jediab
07-31-2008, 09:59 AM
It's a terrible substance, my father died of lung cancer, tobacco is a silly thing to be involved with. However, people should have the freedom to make their stupid decisions and do it if they want to, same with drugs. Making tobacco illegal just means you've turned a couple of million people into drug addicts who have an ultimatum, they either have to quit cold turkey or break the law to get what they want, respect for the law decreases in this situation just like under prohibition.

And unlike other addictions, tobbaco isnt considered important enough for there to be publicly funded rehab centers like there are for crack, meth and the like. At least I do not know of any.

Smart insurance companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield offer free to quit programs, but you have to have their coverage first.

gator
07-31-2008, 10:08 AM
Remember this post when the courts finally iron out just how far guns can be regulated while still calling it an individual right to bear arms.

The SCOTUS has recently affirmed the govenment does not have the right to take away my right to keep and bear arms.

There is no Constitutional right to use a dangerous and addictive drug. SCOTUS has already ruled that the Federal, State and local government have the right to regulate dangerous substances.

I wouldn't vote for someone that promised to pass a law restricting my right to keep and bear arms. I would vote for some that promised to regulate tobacco.


How many billions of dollars a year are you willing to spend to wipe out the scourge of tobacco? You think when the violence that comes with the black market rises there won't be calls for even more gun regulation, more expansion of asset forfeiture laws, more police powers in general? Is that a price you're willing to pay?

As much as it takes to prevent the deaths of a half million people each year.

Actually I wouldn't give a shit but I pay the health cost of the dumbshits that use tobacco products. Health care cost in America are really divided up among those of that that pay. Tobacco addicts are a burden to the sytem and drive up the cost.

Also, tobacco users endager my life by emitting the cancer causing posion in the air. Since I don't have the right to whack the dumbass then the govenment should act on my behalf.

Goldwater
07-31-2008, 10:11 AM
SCOTUS has already ruled that the Federal, State and local government have the right to regulate dangerous substances.

Only federal has a say on drugs.

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 10:21 AM
The SCOTUS has recently affirmed the govenment does not have the right to take away my right to keep and bear arms.

Not really. They said it was an individual right and left things wide open for all kinds of regulation.


There is no Constitutional right to use a dangerous and addictive drug.

Sure there is, but no one cares about that amendment.


I wouldn't vote for someone that promised to pass a law restricting my right to keep and bear arms. I would vote for some that promised to regulate tobacco.

Good luck finding someone who doesn't want to do both.



Actually I wouldn't give a shit but I pay the health cost of the dumbshits that use tobacco products. Health care cost in America are really divided up among those of that that pay. Tobacco addicts are a burden to the sytem and drive up the cost.

So get the government out of the healthcare business. Let insurance companies charge smokers whatever they want. If the smokers can't afford it, that's their problem.



Also, tobacco users endager my life by emitting the cancer causing posion in the air. Since I don't have the right to whack the dumbass then the govenment should act on my behalf.

Better ban those cars and cellphones too. It's for the children.

gator
07-31-2008, 10:50 AM
Only federal has a say on drugs.

Then when a local cop arrest you for possession it is illegal? :confused::rolleyes:

The feds have taken the lead to establish standards for dangerous drugs but the State and locals can do the same.

The State and locals can make it illegal to use cocaine and they can make it illegal to use tobacco, if they want.

gator
07-31-2008, 10:58 AM
Not really. They said it was an individual right and left things wide open for all kinds of regulation.






There is no Constitutional right to use dangerous and addictive drugs.

The Constitution allows the States to pass laws and if they chose to regulate harmful drugs then you just need to move to another state if you don't like it or elect lawmakers that won't pass the laws. The SCOTUS has ruled that you have no protection under the Constution to use harmful drugs.

The Feds, States and the Locals can all regulate and enforce.

It is called the "will of the people".

When the smokers were the majority you could pollute anything and get away with it.

Now that the non smokers are the majority our will is being heard.

Democracy sucks if you are in the minority, doesn't it?

If you don't like it you can move to Cuba.

gator
07-31-2008, 11:01 AM
Better ban those cars and cellphones too. It's for the children.

If you want to pass those laws then go for it.

I don't want to and would not be inclined to vote for representatives that advocate that posititon.

Lanie
07-31-2008, 11:06 AM
Tobacco is a very dangerous substance that kills a half million Americans a year. Because it is addicitive most people cannot make rational decisions on its use. Don't you think the government should regulate something that dangerous?

Not if the cure is worse than the illness. Making tobacco illegal will bring about a black market. If I had my way, it would be more than tobacco and alcohol that would be legal because I'm tired of the illegal drug dealing.

Lanie
07-31-2008, 11:09 AM
Better ban those cars and cellphones too. It's for the children.

Actually they've tried in my state for a while now (NC) to get a law passed requiring people use a headpiece if they use their phone in the car. I support those ideal laws because the cure is not worse than the illness. We have laws against drunk driving. Why not have laws against other activities that make people drive recklessly?

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 11:15 AM
There is no Constitutional right to use dangerous and addictive drugs.

Sure there is. 9th amendment. There's at least as good an argument for a right of the people to use drugs as there is an argument that the government has the power to regulate them.


The Constitution allows the States to pass laws and if they chose to regulate harmful drugs then you just need to move to another state if you don't like it or elect lawmakers that won't pass the laws. The SCOTUS has ruled that you have no protection under the Constution to use harmful drugs.

The Feds, States and the Locals can all regulate and enforce.

It is called the "will of the people".

When the smokers were the majority you could pollute anything and get away with it.

Now that the non smokers are the majority our will is being heard.

Democracy sucks if you are in the minority, doesn't it?

Democracy sucks regardless of where you stand on an issue.



If you don't like it you can move to Cuba.

hahah

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 11:16 AM
Actually they've tried in my state for a while now (NC) to get a law passed requiring people use a headpiece if they use their phone in the car. I support those ideal laws because the cure is not worse than the illness. We have laws against drunk driving. Why not have laws against other activities that make people drive recklessly?

We have that law. You know what it did to cut down on accidents? Jack shit.

Good business for the headset manufacturers though. Gives the cops another excuse to pull you over too.

gator
07-31-2008, 11:21 AM
Sure there is. 9th amendment. There's at least as good an argument for a right of the people to use drugs as there is an argument that the government has the power to regulate them.

If you disagree then talk to SCOTUS. They get the final say so under our Constitution and they have already ruled on this. It is settled case law in the US that the government has the right to regulate dangerous and harmful drugs.

Molon Labe
07-31-2008, 11:24 AM
Be advised there were 96 friggin' Republicans that voted Aye! :mad:



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-542

Lanie
07-31-2008, 11:26 AM
Be advised there were 96 friggin' Republicans that voted Aye! :mad:



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-542

I'm not surprised. I don't want to say why I'm not surprised because it will be a big argument, but I'm not surprised.

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 11:40 AM
If you disagree then talk to SCOTUS. They get the final say so under our Constitution and they have already ruled on this. It is settled case law in the US that the government has the right to regulate dangerous and harmful drugs.

No thanks. I'll worry about my own rights.



I'm not surprised. I don't want to say why I'm not surprised because it will be a big argument, but I'm not surprised.

I'll say it. There's nothing a Republican loves more than expanding federal power. Bunch of whiny nanny statists.

Plus there's the money. Changes requirements for warning labels, requires pre-market approval for new products, etc. Plenty of chances to collect sweet, sweet lobbying money. Plenty of opportunity for those on the receiving end of the law to profit too.

Rebel Yell
07-31-2008, 11:41 AM
Damn Gator, I thought you were for less government involvment in our daily lives. This is a pretty big step in the wrong direction. I agree that smoking is bad for you, and I smoke. You preaching protection from the evil tobacco monster sounds alot like fear mongering. Look, we don't need protection from cigarettes, they have never knocked on my door and jumped in my mouth or even threatened me. You sound like those jackasses from the Truth commercials. Did you know that cigarettes kill more people than there are in the world every year?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e141/michaelblack/rob%20reiner/mike4.jpgThere will be NO MORE SMOKING!!!!!!!!!!!

Odysseus
07-31-2008, 12:34 PM
We have that law. You know what it did to cut down on accidents? Jack shit.
Good business for the headset manufacturers though. Gives the cops another excuse to pull you over too.

What they should have done, was make headset use voluntary, but change the law to assume that any person using a handset during an accident is assumed to be at fault, just as you're assumed to be at fault if you rear-end another driver. People are still free to be morons, but they will have to bear the consequences.

This tobacco legislation is the height of hypocrisy. First, we are told that children will listen to a cartoon camel telling them to smoke, but they won't listen to a teacher who tells them to abstain from sex until they are old enough to make informed decisions, so we must give them condoms. For adults, regardless of the addictive nature of nicotine, we have to make the assumption that adults are capable of making their own decisions, or we end up having the state decide anything that could impact on life expectancy or health, from diet, exercise, gun ownership, sexual relations, you name it. We've already seen what can happen when the gun grabbers go door to door. Will the Federal Department of Lifestyles be weighing and taping us? Will we see the masturbation police coming by to ensure that we have the daily requisite number of orgasms? I've gotten used to a regular government screwing on April 15th. I don't need them mandating a weekly reach around.

noonwitch
07-31-2008, 01:00 PM
Wasn't tobacco already regulated by the government?

All this is going to do is raise the price of cigarettes.

gator
07-31-2008, 01:35 PM
Damn Gator, I thought you were for less government involvment in our daily lives. This is a pretty big step in the wrong direction. I agree that smoking is bad for you, and I smoke. You preaching protection from the evil tobacco monster sounds alot like fear mongering. Look, we don't need protection from cigarettes, they have never knocked on my door and jumped in my mouth or even threatened me. You sound like those jackasses from the Truth commercials. Did you know that cigarettes kill more people than there are in the world every year?

There will be NO MORE SMOKING!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you resize your picture?

The government protects us from a lot of things. Child molesters, thieves, murders etc etc.

As a nation we have elected officials that have passed laws to control harmful drugs.

I suspect that if you look at the list of drugs you will be happy that the government does that for you although you make disagree with some of the substances on the list.

The courts have upheld that it is Constitutional for the Feds, States and locals to pass these laws.

It ain't against the Constitution.

If you don't like the laws your remedy is to leave the country or elect officials that don't pass the laws in the first place.

You can call me crazy if you want but I like the idea the government is in the business of regulating a substance that kills a half million people a year and causes tremendous economic harm to our country.

I understand why you addicts oppose the laws. After all you are addicted and are therefore incapable of thinking rationally on this issue.

A couple of issues like this and abortion tells you why I am not a Libertarian.

By the way, Bud. You and I agree on almost every issue. Canít we have one issue where we disagree?

Gingersnap
07-31-2008, 01:35 PM
Wasn't tobacco already regulated by the government?

All this is going to do is raise the price of cigarettes.

And when the smokers turn to the nontaxable black market, guess who the politicians will come to when their precious ciggie tax money dries up?

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 01:41 PM
The government protects us from a lot of things. Child molesters, thieves, murders etc etc.

No they don't. Technically speaking, the government attempts, with varying degrees of success, to punish people who have committed those crimes.



If you don't like the laws your remedy is to leave the country or elect officials that don't pass the laws in the first place.

Or you can do what most people do and just ignore the law.

Goldwater
07-31-2008, 01:48 PM
I like this, it's like Pat Buchanan versus Ron Paul or something.

FlaGator
07-31-2008, 02:12 PM
Can you resize your picture?

The government protects us from a lot of things. Child molesters, thieves, murders etc etc.

As a nation we have elected officials that have passed laws to control harmful drugs.

I suspect that if you look at the list of drugs you will be happy that the government does that for you although you make disagree with some of the substances on the list.

The courts have upheld that it is Constitutional for the Feds, States and locals to pass these laws.

It ain't against the Constitution.

If you don't like the laws your remedy is to leave the country or elect officials that don't pass the laws in the first place.

You can call me crazy if you want but I like the idea the government is in the business of regulating a substance that kills a half million people a year and causes tremendous economic harm to our country.

I understand why you addicts oppose the laws. After all you are addicted and are therefore incapable of thinking rationally on this issue.

A couple of issues like this and abortion tells you why I am not a Libertarian.

By the way, Bud. You and I agree on almost every issue. Can’t we have one issue where we disagree?

I'm no longer a smoker and I oppose the banning of tobacco. Educate people not to use it. If they want to smoke themselves to death then let them.

Molon Labe
07-31-2008, 02:17 PM
I'll say it. There's nothing a Republican loves more than expanding federal power. Bunch of whiny nanny statists.

That would make them.....Democrats!:mad:

That's why so many conservatives have felt disillusioned. We falsely believe there is really much difference anymore.

gator
07-31-2008, 02:30 PM
No they don't. Technically speaking, the government attempts, with varying degrees of success, to punish people who have committed those crimes.


You don't think punishment is a deterrent?

I would hate to be a cute 10 year old girl without the laws in place deterring 45 year old sleaze balls from fucking me all the time.



Or you can do what most people do and just ignore the law

There are some laws I ignore. For instance, being from real Cracker stock I don't recognize the right of the State of Florida to regulate what kind of fish I catch.

Zeus
07-31-2008, 02:40 PM
There are some laws I ignore. For instance, being from real Cracker stock I don't recognize the right of the State of Florida to regulate what kind of fish I catch.

The government protects us from a lot of things. Child molesters, thieves, murders,fish etc etc.

As a nation we have elected officials that have passed laws to control harmful fish.

I suspect that if you look at the list of fish you will be happy that the government does that for you although you make disagree with some of the fish on the list,

It's also constitutional.

Goldwater
07-31-2008, 02:43 PM
You don't think punishment is a deterrent?

I would hate to be a cute 10 year old girl without the laws in place deterring 45 year old sleaze balls from fucking me all the time.

Of course punishment is a deterrant, he means that the government don't have bodyguards around us 24/7.

FeebMaster
07-31-2008, 03:31 PM
You don't think punishment is a deterrent?

Not really. Certainly not enough to deter most people.

Personally, I'd like to see punishment applied by the victim as the crime is being committed. Preferably the kind of punishment that minimizes recidivism.



I would hate to be a cute 10 year old girl without the laws in place deterring 45 year old sleaze balls from fucking me all the time.

Fortunately there aren't that many 45 year old sleaze balls looking to fuck 10 year old girls. Unfortunately, the laws don't seem to stop the ones there are from doing it.



There are some laws I ignore. For instance, being from real Cracker stock I don't recognize the right of the State of Florida to regulate what kind of fish I catch.

Most people ignore most laws. Most people who break the law aren't ever caught or even suspected.

So go ahead and ban tobacco. Sure, some people will stop. Plenty will get rich on both sides of the law. A few old ladies will get killed when the cops kick in their doors, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

People will still smoke, though.

Odysseus
07-31-2008, 04:35 PM
By the way, Bud. You and I agree on almost every issue. Canít we have one issue where we disagree?
Can I get the same consideration?

The government protects us from a lot of things. Child molesters, thieves, murders,fish etc etc.
As a nation we have elected officials that have passed laws to control harmful fish.
I suspect that if you look at the list of fish you will be happy that the government does that for you although you make disagree with some of the fish on the list,
It's also constitutional.

When fish are outlawed, only outlaws will have fish, and they will have to pry from my cold, dead hands.

Zeus
07-31-2008, 04:39 PM
Can I get the same consideration?


When fish are outlawed, only outlaws will have fish, and they will have to pry from my cold, dead hands.

The Lutefisk rebellion :)

Oh my bad you said cold I thought you said Cod :rolleyes:

gator
07-31-2008, 04:41 PM
Can I get the same consideration?




When you get your head out of your Israel loving ass and start putting the interest of America ahead of some scumbag Middle East country then we can talk.

Zeus
07-31-2008, 04:47 PM
Tobacco in Israel

http://www.euromonitor.com/img/country/IS20.gif (http://www.euromonitor.com/Tobacco_in_Israel)
Euromonitor International's Tobacco in Israel market report offers a comprehensive guide to the size and shape of the market at a national level. It provides the latest retail sales data, allowing you to identify the sectors driving growth. It identifies the leading companies, the leading brands and offers strategic analysis of key factors influencing the market - be they new product developments, packaging innovations, economic/lifestyle influences, distribution or pricing issues. Forecasts illustrate how the market is set to change.

Rebel Yell
07-31-2008, 04:51 PM
Can you resize your picture?

My bad. :D


The government protects us from a lot of things. Child molesters, thieves, murders etc etc.

But we shouldn't be protected from ourselves.


As a nation we have elected officials that have passed laws to control harmful drugs.

I suspect that if you look at the list of drugs you will be happy that the government does that for you although you make disagree with some of the substances on the list.
I have mixed emotions on narcotics, although I don't really see weed as more dangerous than alcohol.


The courts have upheld that it is Constitutional for the Feds, States and locals to pass these laws.

It ain't against the Constitution.

I don't think that was what the founding fathers had in mind, but I'm not in their mind.


If you don't like the laws your remedy is to leave the country or elect officials that don't pass the laws in the first place.

Always your remedy, ain't it? :D

You can call me crazy if you want but I like the idea the government is in the business of regulating a substance that kills a half million people a year and causes tremendous economic harm to our country.

I understand why you addicts oppose the laws. After all you are addicted and are therefore incapable of thinking rationally on this issue.

When I got tired of smoking dope, I quit. I don't put much faith in the numbers put out about smoking, or drugs for that matter. It's all propaganda on both sides of every issue in this country, today.

A couple of issues like this and abortion tells you why I am not a Libertarian.

I'm border line libertarian on certain issues, myself.


By the way, Bud. You and I agree on almost every issue. Canít we have one issue where we disagree.

Yeah, well noboy's perfect. :D I just ask myself.....WWJDD? (What would Jeff Davis Do?)

gator
07-31-2008, 05:32 PM
Yeah, well noboy's perfect. :D I just ask myself.....WWJDD? (What would Jeff Davis Do?)

That actually is a good moral compass. I need to keep that in mind.

Lanie
07-31-2008, 05:54 PM
We have that law. You know what it did to cut down on accidents? Jack shit.

I'd be interested in knowing if it went down and if not, what the accidents were caused from.


Good business for the headset manufacturers though. Gives the cops another excuse to pull you over too.

We need to find some way to pay for the school system since they're relying too much on the lottery.

I mean, it's for our own good. It deters more than realized to have traffic laws. Germany doesn't have a speed limit on their highways, and they have a lot of car accidents.

Nubs
07-31-2008, 10:50 PM
Studies have proven that there is a 100% correlation between life and death. Therefore life is the leading cause of death.

Give me my smokes and get the f*ck out of my life.

gator
08-01-2008, 07:21 AM
Studies have proven that there is a 100% correlation between life and death. Therefore life is the leading cause of death.

Give me my smokes and get the f*ck out of my life.

The denial voice of addiction speaking. It is really pathetic.

Stop it so that I don't have to pay a significant portion of the health care of a half million deaths of morons each year due to tobacco addition and make it a criminal offense to poison my air with cigarette smoke and then we can talk. Also, throw in a significant criminal offense for subjecting children to the poison because they can’t protect themselves.

SarasotaRepub
08-01-2008, 07:33 AM
Studies have proven that there is a 100% correlation between life and death. Therefore life is the leading cause of death.

Give me my smokes and get the f*ck out of my life.

Damn straight Nubs. :D

Gator siding with Rep. Henry Waxman??? :eek::D

Odysseus
08-01-2008, 10:41 AM
The Lutefisk rebellion :)
Oh my bad you said cold I thought you said Cod :rolleyes:
Don't get me started on Gefilte fish or you know who will go ballistic.

When you get your head out of your Israel loving ass and start putting the interest of America ahead of some scumbag Middle East country then we can talk.
I'll take that as a "no." I just wanted to be able to be civil to you on other topics, but you can't reason with a fanatic.

Studies have proven that there is a 100% correlation between life and death. Therefore life is the leading cause of death.
Give me my smokes and get the f*ck out of my life.
But, Obama said that we will have eternal life if we elect him. You're a heretic, you are. :D

The denial voice of addiction speaking. It is really pathetic.
Stop it so that I have to pay a significant portion of the health care of a half million deaths of morons each year due to tobacco addition and make it a criminal offense to poison my air with cigarette smoke and then we can talk. Also, throw in a significant criminal offense for subjecting children to the poison because they canít protect themselves.
You're screwed either way. If a smoker dies young, then he saves Medicare a bunch of money, but if he quits and lives to require multiple bypasses and longterm care, we foot the bill. Smoking shouldn't be anyone's business but the smoker's, and it wouldn't be if we weren't constantly imposing new programs on people "for their own good." The problem isn't smoking, it's politicians breaking the link between medical services and payers, which distorts the market and creates perverse incentives.

Damn straight Nubs.
Gator siding with Rep. Henry Waxman???
Socialism makes strange bedfellows.

Goldwater
08-01-2008, 11:32 AM
gator has a point, when the government runs or is even minimmally involved in healthcare, it has a vested interest in making sure you're healthy and in this situation almost has a right to interfere.

Molon Labe
08-01-2008, 11:36 AM
gator has a point, when the government runs or is even minimmally involved in healthcare, it has a vested interest in making sure you're healthy and in this situation almost has a right to interfere.

Correct....it's everywhere government intervention is found.

gator
08-01-2008, 12:00 PM
gator has a point, when the government runs or is even minimmally involved in healthcare, it has a vested interest in making sure you're healthy and in this situation almost has a right to interfere.

In America the cost of health care is borne by those that can pay. You see the cost in insurance, professional and facility fees.

The tobacco addicts have health care problems out of proportion due the dangerous nature of the drug. They run up the cost of health care and I pay for it although I do not have the addiction.

Another factor is that typically tobacco addicts are at the lower end of the economic scale. If are so stupid as to use the dangerous drug then you are probably a dumb ass loser in other areas. That means you are not contributing your share to health care cost.

There has been a trend to segregate the addicts from the non addicts in insurance premiums but it is only a drop in the bucket.

Freedom is about being responsible for your own actions. The goddamn sorry ass tobacco addict losers cry about the freedom to smoke but get on the health care dole when it is time to pay for their stupidity. They are infringing on my freedom because I am forced to pay for their stupidity and I don’t like it.

The worst thing is that smokers have the right to poison children and I don’t like that. The poor kids can’t protect themselves from smoking parents and dumbass adult associates that poison the breathing area with a known cancer causing substance. If we can protect kids from child molesters and other predators we sure as hell can protect them from selfish assholes that would have more concerned for their stupid little addition than they have for the health of their children.

Cold Warrior
08-01-2008, 12:15 PM
...Freedom is about being responsible for your own actions. The goddamn sorry ass tobacco addict losers cry about the freedom to smoke but get on the health care dole when it is time to pay for their stupidity. They are infringing on my freedom because I am forced to pay for their stupidity and I donít like it. ...

Although they cost in the short term for additional health care, I think you might find that smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying earlier.

Rebel Yell
08-01-2008, 12:25 PM
In America the cost of health care is borne by those that can pay. You see the cost in insurance, professional and facility fees.

The tobacco addicts have health care problems out of proportion due the dangerous nature of the drug. They run up the cost of health care and I pay for it although I do not have the addiction.

Another factor is that typically tobacco addicts are at the lower end of the economic scale. If are so stupid as to use the dangerous drug then you are probably a dumb ass loser in other areas. That means you are not contributing your share to health care cost.

There has been a trend to segregate the addicts from the non addicts in insurance premiums but it is only a drop in the bucket.

Freedom is about being responsible for your own actions. The goddamn sorry ass tobacco addict losers cry about the freedom to smoke but get on the health care dole when it is time to pay for their stupidity. They are infringing on my freedom because I am forced to pay for their stupidity and I donít like it.

The worst thing is that smokers have the right to poison children and I donít like that. The poor kids canít protect themselves from smoking parents and dumbass adult associates that poison the breathing area with a known cancer causing substance. If we can protect kids from child molesters and other predators we sure as hell can protect them from selfish assholes that would have more concerned for their stupid little addition than they have for the health of their children.


When the government starts regulating laziness and gets lazy bastards uot of the working people's pocketbook, I'll go along with this. What about the fat bastards? Are we gonna regulate them?

gator
08-01-2008, 01:27 PM
When the government starts regulating laziness and gets lazy bastards uot of the working people's pocketbook, I'll go along with this. What about the fat bastards? Are we gonna regulate them?


You have done just what the tobacco addicts always do when confronted with a little moral clarity on the issue. You point to something else.

We may or may not want to cut the fat and lazy bastards out of the health care honey wagon but that is another discussion. This discussion is about the stupidy and unfairness of the burden the tobacco addicts put on decent people.

Smoking is one of the most stupid things a human being can do. Just because there are other stupid things don't mean we shouldn't hold the dumbshits responsible for their own health cost.

gator
08-01-2008, 01:38 PM
Although they cost in the short term for additional health care, I think you might find that smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying earlier.

I have heard that argument before but when I did research I found out that tobacco addiction cost the health care industry hundreds of millions of dollars each years, which is mostly borne by those that aren't addicted.

There is a cost to dying no matter what the cause. However, the significant health cost of the diseases caused by tobacco additction is a tremendous burden on the health care industry with about a half million deaths each year.

What is really pathetic is that people will put themselfves into that death risk pool just to satisfy their petty little addiction. That is almost the most stupid thing a human can do.

Why would anyone do something that a half million people die from each year? Driving a car kills less than 1/10th as many. There is no other environmental risk as great as the use of tobacco.

Dumbshits.

Rebel Yell
08-01-2008, 01:39 PM
You have done just what the tobacco addicts always do when confronted with a little moral clarity on the issue. You point to something else.

We may or may not want to cut the fat and lazy bastards out the health care honey wagon but that is another discussion. This discussion is about the stupidy and unfairness of the burden the tobacco addicts put on decent people.

Smoking is one of the most stupid things a human being can do. Just because there are other stupid things don't mean we shouldn't hold the dumbshits responsible for their own health cost.

It's the old slippery slope. As a general rule, the less power the government has the better.

WWJDD?

gator
08-01-2008, 01:54 PM
It's the old slippery slope. As a general rule, the less power the government has the better.

WWJDD?

This is about choice. It is about the majority of the people deciding they aren't going to tolerate stupid ass smokers anymore. Our Constitution allows the people to make decisions like that. The smokers made the decision for too long to interfere in the lives of non smokers and now the tables are beginning to turn.

Under the rules of our Republic the smokers are going to have to learn to live with it. Just like I had to learn to life with smokers most of my life.

There are many laws in this country that I don't like but I have to suck it up. Unfortunately you don't get everything you want in a democracy. Life is a bitch, isn’t it?

Rebel Yell
08-01-2008, 03:24 PM
This is about choice. It is about the majority of the people deciding they aren't going to tolerate stupid ass smokers anymore. Our Constitution allows the people to make decisions like that. The smokers made the decision for too long to interfere in the lives of non smokers and now the tables are beginning to turn.

Under the rules of our Republic the smokers are going to have to learn to live with it. Just like I had to learn to life with smokers most of my life.

There are many laws in this country that I don't like but I have to suck it up. Unfortunately you don't get everything you want in a democracy. Life is a bitch, isnít it?

Once the Prophet is elected it won't matter. You'll be in the same boat as us smokers. Let's say you or me have a lung condition that needs attention. i won't get the treatment because I smoke and it's not worth the money. You won't get the attention because you're old and about to die anyway so it still won't be worth the money. Once his universal health care kicks in there will be no need to ban smoking. GO OBAMA!!!!!!!!


Of course you know that's bullshit, I'd much rather put down my smokes than have universal health care.:D

JB
08-01-2008, 04:47 PM
More liberal government communist bullshit.

I'll pay a thousand dollars per for anyone you find over the age of seven that doesn't already know that cigarettes are bad for you.

What a waste of resources.

Elspeth
08-01-2008, 05:38 PM
It's good to know we have the government to decide what's best for us. :rolleyes:

Do they want a black market?

That's a good question. A black market has certain advantages, especially for the monied class.

Odysseus
08-01-2008, 09:38 PM
Why would anyone do something that a half million people die from each year? Driving a car kills less than 1/10th as many. There is no other environmental risk as great as the use of tobacco.
Dumbshits.

That half-million stat is highly misleading. The Cato Institute's study (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5472) debunked it. Even though CDC puts the number at just over 400,000, over 60% of smoking related deaths occur in people over the age of 70, with an average age of all smoking deaths at age 72. Now, I'm not saying that smoking isn't bad for you, but a smoker's life expectancy is only about 5-years shorter than the national average, which is hardly a cause for a massive government intrusion into an individual decision.

LibraryLady
08-01-2008, 09:45 PM
That half-million stat is highly misleading. The Cato Institute's study (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5472) debunked it. Even though CDC puts the number at just over 400,000, over 60% of smoking related deaths occur in people over the age of 70, with an average age of all smoking deaths at age 72. Now, I'm not saying that smoking isn't bad for you, but a smoker's life expectancy is only about 5-years shorter than the national average, which is hardly a cause for a massive government intrusion into an individual decision.

Most of the smokers in my family were dead by 60. So the Hell what. Served them right.

Goldwater
08-01-2008, 09:50 PM
Most of the smokers in my family were dead by 60. So the Hell what. Served them right.

:(

I wuv you LL...

Shannon
08-01-2008, 09:54 PM
I'm completely shocked that Gator showed up in this thread with his usual anti-smoking rants.

LibraryLady
08-01-2008, 09:54 PM
:(

I wuv you LL...


I wuv you too Au, smoking is just a very touchy subject with me. My family obviously has some genetic weakness and they just watch each other die and puff away.

lacarnut
08-01-2008, 10:17 PM
You have done just what the tobacco addicts always do when confronted with a little moral clarity on the issue. You point to something else.

We may or may not want to cut the fat and lazy bastards out of the health care honey wagon but that is another discussion. This discussion is about the stupidy and unfairness of the burden the tobacco addicts put on decent people.

Smoking is one of the most stupid things a human being can do. Just because there are other stupid things don't mean we shouldn't hold the dumbshits responsible for their own health cost.

I quit smoking over 20 years ago and was a 3 pack a day man. I quit cold turkey because I could not control my addicition. Being addicted to anything is stupid. However, someone that smokes 3 or 4 cigs or a cigar a day is not addicted. I don't think they pose a health risk to themselves or anyone else. I also believe this second hand smoke is a bunch of crap. If it did, I would be dead by now.

SaintLouieWoman
08-01-2008, 10:38 PM
I'm completely shocked that Gator showed up in this thread with his usual anti-smoking rants.

I'm shocked, too, like it's never happened before. :D

Too bad the board had gone down, they could have gone back to one of the other threads and cut and pasted and saved keystroking time.

SaintLouieWoman
08-01-2008, 10:39 PM
I quit smoking over 20 years ago and was a 3 pack a day man. I quit cold turkey because I could not control my addicition. Being addicted to anything is stupid. However, someone that smokes 3 or 4 cigs or a cigar a day is not addicted. I don't think they pose a health risk to themselves or anyone else. I also believe this second hand smoke is a bunch of crap. If it did, I would be dead by now.

Did SR pay you to say this? :p

lacarnut
08-01-2008, 10:51 PM
Did SR pay you to say this? :p

No, I am just saying that people that are light smokers are less a drag on the health system than what has been presented here.

Since I quit smoking, I would not want to kiss someone that smokes. After a couple of hours around a smoker, your clothes and hair stink. People that smoke do not realize that but it is true. Get in a elevator with someone that has smoked a cig and they reek with tobacco odor. However, it could be that since I had my sinus surgery that my sniffer is working at 100+%.

Aklover
08-02-2008, 12:19 AM
Shouldn't just regulate, should be banned, along with alcohol, bring back prohibition!


Great idea take away a tax winner for the government, create a black market demand for 2 more products giving more money to criminals, and drive crime up even more! Genius!

Zeus
08-02-2008, 12:44 AM
Cato's Levy Challenges Federal Tobacco Myths (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_4_16/ai_59187718)



This is not to say that tobacco is not a problem. Tobacco is clearly a problem. The evidence is overwhelming that use of tobacco can cause lung cancer, emphysema, bronchitis. But with respect to other diseases its role is less certain. This causes us to ask whether the government is lying to us in presenting these kinds of statistics, because, if it is, that has implications.

Insight: What implications?

RAL: We've seen what happened with antitobacco lawsuits. They've morphed now into antigun litigation. Shortly, it will be the HMOs [health-maintenance organizations] under attack. Who knows what will be next? Fatty foods and alcohol are other obvious candidates for such government-sponsored litigation. The corruption of science for political ends is destructive to a free society and dangerous to citizens who want their government to refrain from activities that intrude upon the rights of people to make their own choices.

Data are being massaged so as to produce outcomes that the litigants find congenial; whether those outcomes are supported by the data is disregarded. I think that's exactly what happened in the tobacco wars.

Goldwater
08-02-2008, 06:22 AM
Great idea take away a tax winner for the government, create a black market demand for 2 more products giving more money to criminals, and drive crime up even more! Genius!

You love it!

SarasotaRepub
08-02-2008, 10:47 AM
No, I am just saying that people that are light smokers are less a drag on the health system than what has been presented here.

Since I quit smoking, I would not want to kiss someone that smokes.

Thanks for the support bud but if you think you get a kissy....:mad::D

Aklover
08-07-2008, 08:53 PM
You love it!



Sarcasm meter broken?